Mello

NFL's PR department.

All depends on what the Cowboys do this offseason. I think with the injury issues they have had at RB they'll be reluctant to try and move Barber. If all 3 stay, I just can't trust any one of them to get consistent carries. I'd rather go after a lesser running back with little competition.

The rule does exactly what it was meant to. Give the NFL the look of giving minorities a better shot while still allowing teams to hire who they want. Personally, I don't see any better way the NFL could handle things. You can't force teams to hire a minority coach if they think there's a better option.

In the NFL, I don't blame players as much for this. If the contracts were guaranteed I'd agree, but when a team can just cut you and pay nothing I think the players deserve to be able to demand an increase when they are being paid less than what their performance is worth. The part that I don't like is half of this issue is because Cribbs has a new agent since he signed his contract. The new agent is pushing this because he wants his piece of the pie.

Hester's last extension was four years $40 million with $15 million guaranteed. I don't know if Cribbs should expect that much, but somewhere between there are the $1.4 million a year they just offered definitely. Maybe $5 million a year with half of it guaranteed . Cleveland needs to pay him though. He's by far their best player. They should make him their wildcat QB and use it more next year. Involve him more in the offense as either a RB or WR. Anything to get the ball in his hands more and make him earn the money.

This year Manning, Rivers, Brady, Brees, Favre, and Schaub were better QBs. A good argument could be made for Rodgers or Ben too. There's simply a lot of good QBs in the league. Romo has the skills to be one of the best though.

Your obviously living a different life then I am because rules are flexible all over the place. First rule is, don't get caught and you didn't break a rule, but beyond that... Don't turn in a paper on time, if you have a good relationship with your professor and have a good history you'll probably get the opportunity to get something other than an F. That penalty and interest on your tax return can be reduced and dealt with with the right lawyers. Rules are not just rules. We can each think they should or shouldn't be. That's fine, we have our own opinions. That's also why we have commissioners in our league to make a final ruling. If they were all set in complete 100% stone, we wouldn't need them. Just get the site to properly apply the rules and that's it. Yes, rules have consequences, but those consequences can be reduced or eliminated depending on circumstance. We should learn from those circumstances in an effort to improve our rules for the future.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that extra level of complexity really adds additional value to FF except for burning the lazys, but it's the standard rule *shrug*.

I think of the "Don't bench your studs" theory as something that should be used only when you have a close call to make. And there's no right answer. FF is half luck anyway. Week 15, I benched SJax because of the pig flu for Sproles (can be studly in a league that scores return yds) and lost the semi because of it. Yep, shouldn't have benched my stud. Last week, I slotted SJax in and had to make a last second sub because he was inactive. I lost 20 points from not starting Sproles. Should have benched my stud there. All we can do is play who we think is going to score the most points. If your confident your bench player is going to outperform your stud, swap them. If your not sure, probably better to go with the stud since he's going to turn in a good performance for you most of the time (that's why he's a stud).

Agreed. I'm not saying that the person in the OP should have been allowed to make the change by the commish. He knew the rules and had time to make a change. I faced this situation in my league (sadly in the 3rd place game) and was able to plug in Felix Jones instead of SJax about 15 mins before the 4 PM kickoffs. What I don't understand is why most leagues lock an inactive player after his team kicks off. He's inactive, not taking part in the game, and has no opportunity to score. A different situation from someone who is active and then gets injured, benched, or whatever else would cause him to suck that week. Is there any benefit to having the rules set up to force players to check for 4PM inactives and make the change before then or email the commish each week with each scenario you want for your questionable players before games start?

Not that it matters, but I fall a about 5 years before the "Millennials". I admitted in my post that this guy's rules are set so that if an inactive player's team kicks off, you can't remove him from your starting lineup. I think it would have been too late Sunday or Monday to make a change unless both opponents agreed to it and it didn't effect the money of anyone else in the league. My point is that this is a stupid rule and for reasons I can't understand is the standard across most leagues. I see no reason, other than "that's the rule" why you shouldn't be able to replace an inactive player with someone that active that hasn't kicked off yet. Why don't you try offering a substantive response to my post?

I'm really not trying to back the OP up, because if the rules say you can't swap an inactive player out, then you can't. I don't see why it's so hard for some of you to understand the difference between a player getting benched or hurt during a game rather than inactive. Inactive means he is inelligable to play. He might as well not even be on the team or in the NFL. He's a complete non-factor and there's no chance he will score a single point. So why should the player be locked down where he can't be subbed for someone who's team hasn't kicked off yet just because the team he's on, who he's not even on the active roster for, kicked off? The only reason I can think is because the rules say so. That's a good enough reason for the OP's post, but I wish most leagues would change this rule. In your "example" the players were given an opportunity to score points. They started the game and were eligable to play, and did play. Even if they didn't play, they could at any time during the game if the coach chose to allow it.

I'm a Cowboys fan and approve of this message. Blue_Star_Wrecking_Crew, your just setting yourself up when/if Romo loses to what is likely a better team either next week or in the playoffs. I think he's bumped up his game this year and he always got more grief then he deserved for past failures but your taking it too far the other way. It comes with the territory of being a Cowboys QB. As a fan, you should just accept it and learn to enjoy the hate.

I don't see how it's slippery if he's inactive and being swapped with someone with a later kickoff. I'd agree with you if this was an injury or anything else that could happen when he was active, but being inactive, he might as well been on a bye week.

This wasn't even Sunday morning news. I wasn't in the championship, but 3rd place money and decided to check before the 4PM kickoffs just in case and learned of it. Had to quickly drop someone for Felix Jones. Would have been screwed in one of those leagues that locks down waivers. In the OPs question, if this is a H2H league, I'd leave it between the two players. If his opponent is OK with him using someone playing tonight, I see no reason why not. If he disagrees or this is a total points league and the rules lock down players after kickoff, even if inactive, then he can't play someone from tonight. What this situation highlights to me is, why do most leagues lock down lineups at the team's kickoff time? I know in my local Yahoo league it does this. If the player is on bye, you can remove him but if the player is inactive, you can't after his team kicks off. To me, it seems like the best setup would be to allow players to be removed from the starting line up up to 5 mins before their team's kickoff if they are active, or anytime if they are inactive. Obviously you can only place another player in your lineup that hasn't played yet. Seems like it would be fairer and more forgiving to someone that might have just been enjoying a 1PM game and didn't hear the news until too late.